Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Air Force, Coast Guard talk C-27J deal

  1. #16
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by junglejim View Post
    well yeah there is that so quit a predicament. Unless the Us pulls it weight with Canada and other allies to soothe Alenia
    It's akin to the Northrop F-20 situation.
    Many countries were intrested and willing to buy, but without the USAF (Air National Guard) purchase, the whole thing fell through.

  2. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,023

    Default

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...yed-again.html

    another potential customer for surplus aircraft

  3. #18
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    The more I read about it, the more weird does this whole C-27J story become.

    What an ugly situation all involved seem to be in. The Army is losing its transport (and before that, getting the numbers cut down), Alenia is losing orders and refuses to maintain US-sold C-27J (rightly so, imho!), and the USAF has a hard time explaining its recent decision.

  4. #19
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marktigger View Post
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...yed-again.html

    another potential customer for surplus aircraft
    Viking Aircraft of BC, has licensing rights to re-start the Buffalo line.

  5. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,023

    Default

    It would be nice to see New Buffalo for a variety of airforces!

  6. #21
    Senior Member BogT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,999

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ordie View Post
    But the C-295 is cheaper due to the larger numbers and manufacture support.
    If the USAF refuses them, then nations will rethink the C-27 and opt for the C-295.
    I thought the reason why the C-27 was preferred over the C-295, was due to its ability to carry the standard NATO 463L pallets (3.5) and up to two HMMWVs.
    That and the fact that is shares its engines with NATO's work-hose, the C-130.

    The C-27 always made sense to me. Even US must have transports for which the C-130 is overkill. The C-27 just gave more flexibility and potentially saved money (no need to carry ice-cream and fresh vegetables in a half empty C-130).
    I somewhat understand the desire to cut their purchase (urgent needed short term budget savings vs. long term savings), but it's a shame nonetheless.

  7. #22
    Member Dankster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    805

    Default

    The USAF decision is a textboot example of an inter-service pissing match.

    I hope they do hand them off the Coasties, at least the purchase wouldn't be a total bust.

  8. #23
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dankster View Post
    The USAF decision is a textboot example of an inter-service pissing match.

    I hope they do hand them off the Coasties, at least the purchase wouldn't be a total bust.
    The Coast Guard already operates the HC-144A (C-235).

    Being the smallest of all services, I don't think they want another dissimilar aircraft type.

    Best option is to give it to the State's ANG/NG units who could supplement the C-130 with the C-27J at a lower cost.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ordie View Post
    Best option is to give it to the State's ANG/NG units who could supplement the C-130 with the C-27J at a lower cost.
    I thought the National Guard is the sole US operator of the C-27J, and that the aircraft was bought for the exact same reasons to begin with: supplement of C-130 at a lower cost.

  10. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steak-Sauce View Post
    I thought the National Guard is the sole US operator of the C-27J, and that the aircraft was bought for the exact same reasons to begin with: supplement of C-130 at a lower cost.
    Yep. And the ANG certainly isn't happy about the cuts: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

  11. #26
    Senior Member Dominique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    9,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ordie View Post
    Best option is to give it to the State's ANG/NG units who could supplement the C-130 with the C-27J at a lower cost.
    Which was part of the original plan. the C-27Js were supposed to start replacing the Sherpa's currently in use by the Guard, but the USAF made sure that wouldn't happen.

  12. #27
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Zulu Time
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ordie View Post
    .
    The Aussies don't want to be a one off customer stuck with a C-27 fleet with limited spares and inter-operability. They had enough of that experience with the Caribou.

    IIRC, Afghan AF and Italy are flying the type.

  13. #28
    Senior Member junglejim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Age
    33
    Posts
    14,252

    Default

    That is hardly promising Cal. Having the USAF behind your product does wonders in terms of long term profitability of the venture. Other countries see long term viability of your aircraft through American demand. Not having that and you are reliant to just the company instead, so what if it folds up where are you going to get spares?

  14. #29
    Senior Member boreal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    1,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cal_Zephyr View Post
    IIRC, Afghan AF and Italy are flying the type.
    Afghan air force is flying overhauled AMI G-222īs from the early 80īs.

  15. #30
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    24,838

    Default

    This is why the NG/ANG needs a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •